LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 107 393 A 



Conservation Resour 
Lie-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



\ 



ELECTION OF DELEGATES 

FROM NEW YORK TO THE 

SECOND CONTINENTAL 

CONGRESS 



BY 

CARL BECKER 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



Jmmtatt gtetorwal §wiew 



VOL. IX NO. i 



OCTOBER, 1903 



/3* 



[Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. IX., No. i, Oct., 1903.] ' 



ELECTION OF DELEGATES FROM NEW YORK TO 
THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 

The history of political parties in New York during the Revo- 
lution is the history of the differentiation of the popular party into 
revolutionist and loyalist. It is true that from the first there was 
the germ of a loyalist party in the so-called court faction which in 
the early part of the eighteenth century played an important part in 
provincial politics. But after 1733 the important fact was the 
growth of the popular faction under the lead of the Livingston 
family until in the early period of the Stamp Act troubles the court 
faction all but disappeared. For the moment the province found 
unity in a somewhat undiscriminating anti-British protest. But this 
unity was momentary only : from 1765 to 1776 the central fact 
was the gradual differentiation of the anti-British party into various 
factions, out of which were ultimately formed the irreconcilable 
parties of loyalist and revolutionist. 

As early as the Stamp Act riots in November, 1765, the landed 
class began to draw away from the popular movement, estranged 
by the mob violence which threatened its property, and by the in- 
creasing importance of the unfranchised classes which threatened 
its political supremacy. In 1770 the merchants also separated 
from the popular party. The commercial disadvantage of absolute 
non-intercourse had driven them to advocate a policy of partial 
non-intercourse — non-intercourse, namely, in respect to those 
commodities only which were subject to parliamentary taxation. 
With the arrival of the East India Company's tea-ships in 1 773— 
1774, the popular party was reorganized under the name of the 
Sons of Liberty ; and the merchants and landed classes in a sense 
drew together and formed what may be called the conservative 
party. By 1774 the separation of radicals and conservatives was 
measurably complete. The latter, who wished to direct resistance 
along lines of compromise and conciliation, were in favor of partial 
non-intercourse and negotiation; the former, who were not unwill- 
ing to carry resistance to the very edge of revolution, were in favor 
of absolute non-intercourse and mob violence. 

Such were the main issues round which centered the struggle 
for the delegates to the Continental Congress. The key to the 

66 



6y C Becker 

situation is to be found in the effort of the conservatives. While 
the progress of events from 1774 to 1776 in America and in Eng- 
land tended steadily to define the issue more and more precisely in 
terms of revolution and loyalism, the conservatives attempted 
throughout to steer a clear course between absolute resistance on 
the one hand and absolute submission on the other. They at- 
tempted to do this by gaining control of the popular organization 
and dictating through. this organization the election of delegates to 
the first Continental Congress, and by opposing the effort of the 
radical organization to control through a provincial convention the 
election of delegates to the second Continental Congress. The 
significance of the period consists in the practical failure of the 
conservative programme, and in the ultimate disintegration of the 
conservative faction. In a previous paper ' conservative activity in 
respect to the election of delegates to the first Continental Congress 
was considered. It is the purpose of this paper to show in some de- 
tail how the struggle for delegates to the second Continental Congress 
operated to complete the disintegration of the conservative faction. 
While the conservatives were nominally successful in electing 
their delegates to the first Continental Congress, the action of that 
body was of immense importance in the party transformations of the 
immediate future — was, in fact, the first step in the disintegration 
of the conservative faction. Its immense importance lay in the fact 
that in sending delegates to a general congress the two factions in 
New York virtually agreed to throw the burden of forming a policy 
of resistance upon an authority outside the province ; consciously 
or unconsciously, they thereby surrendered the privilege of having 
a policy of their own. The decision of Congress, while it carried 
no legal sanction with it, would necessarily exercise a profound in- 
fluence, especially if it adopted the policy of one faction and rejected 
that of the other. This is almost precisely what the first Conti- 
nental Congress did ; it adopted a policy of absolute non-intercourse 
and drew up an Association to that effect, recommending that com- 
mittees be appointed in every province, county, and town to see 
that it was signed as generally and enforced as rigorously as possi- 
ble." The radicals then had only to continue as they had begun. 
To the conservatives, on the other hand, two paths were open — 
either to use the decision of Congress as an excuse for changing 
their attitude, or to put themselves in opposition to the united de- 
cision of the colonies. 3 It was manifestly impossible to follow both 

1 Political Science Quarterly, March, 1903. 
2 4 American Archives, I. 913. 

3 Cf. Thomas Young to John Lamb, Oct. 4, 1774, MS. Papers of Tohn Lamb, 
I774-'775- The John Lamb Papers are in the New York Historical Society Library. 

P. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 68 

paths ; composed, as the conservative party was, of incipient revolu- 
tionists and of incipient loyalists, it was impossible to follow either 
as a part_\-. Practically, the result of the first Continental Congress 
.was to split tlie conservative faction in two; a part followed one 
path, a part followed the other. The voice of all the colonies, 
speaking out, as it were, in sharp rebuke against the policy whii h 
the conservatives in New York had advocated, came like an ultima- 
tum both to those who were ready lor forcible resistance and to 
those who were prepared to remain faithful to the home government 
when no other alternative offered. 

This result was realized with measurable completeness in the 
events leading up to the election of delegates to the second Conti- 
nental Congress. Meanwhile, the- question immediately in hand 
was whether the action of the first Continental Congress should be 
approved or not, and, if approved, how its recommendations re- 
specting the Association could be most effectively carried out. 
In the city this led to the election of a new committee — the Com- 
mittee of Sixty, sometimes called the Committee of Inspection. 

On November 7 the Fifty-< >ne resolved that the freemen and 
freeholders should be requested to assemble on November IS at 
the usual places of election and choose eight persons in each ward 
to act as a committee of inspi ction for the enforcement ol the Asso- 
ciation. 1 In passing this resolution without a division the conserva- 
tive committee may appear to have accepted the verdict ot Con- 
gress without reservation. On closer inspection, however, it will be 
found that the committee was principally intent on making the best 
of a bad situation. In its recommendation for the election ot com- 
mittees Congress had suggested that the suffrage be limited to free- 
holders and freemen. There was some consolation lor the Fifty- 
( )ne in the fact that this limitation, if observed in New York, might 
place the control of the Association there in conservative hands. 
It is to be observed further that the resolution by which the con- 
servative committee called for the election of committees of inspec- 
tion made no provision for the dissolution of the Fifty-One; and it 
is more than likely that the nu\v committees were intended to serve 
merely as ward committees under the supervision of the Fifty-One 
as a central committee. If the conservatives, therefore, took the 
first step in response to the recommendations ot Congress, it was 
only that they still hoped to direct where they were no longer able 
to control ; an initial willingness to act upon the suggestion ol Con- 
gress might save, it was hoped, the life and influence of the con- 
servative organization. 

1 4 ./«, r;', ,n: trchivt , 1 . 328, 529. 



69 C. Becker 

It was hardly to be expected, perhaps, that the radicals would 
fail to see the tendency of such action. On Sunday, November 13, 
the Mechanics Committee, which now represented the radicals, pub- 
lished a broadside calling for a special meeting of that body at 4 
o'clock and a general mass-meeting of all radicals at 5 o'clock on 
the following day, for the purpose of discussing the questions raised 
by the resolutions of the Fifty-One. 1 It is not known precisely 
what was done at either of these meetings, but it is obvious that the 
proposals of the conservative committee were found unsatisfactory. 
The Fifty-One on the evening of the same day addressed to the 
Mechanics Committee a letter requesting a conference on the day 
following, in order that a " mode that shall be agreeable to their 
fellow citizens in general " might be arranged. 2 This conference 
resulted in the adoption of a plan widely different from the original 
proposition of the conservatives. Instead of ward committees, there 
was to be a general committee of inspection of not more than sev- 
enty nor less than sixty members. It was to be elected by the free- 
men and freeholders, not in ward elections, but at the city hall, 
under the supervision of the vestrymen. Finally, it was understood 
that the election of the new committee should be followed by the 
immediate dissolution of the Fifty-One. 3 

If this arrangement is to be regarded as a compromise, it was 
a curiously one-sided one. There were two points which it was of 
serious importance for the conservatives, if they wished to remain 
conservative, to hold to — the limitation of the suffrage, and the 
continued existence of the Fifty-One. Virtually, both points were 
given up. It is true the suffrage was not technically extended, but 
the method of election was so changed that the suffrage ceased to 
be a matter of any importance : to say that the committee should 
be elected by the freemen and freeholders, at the city hall, under 
the supervision of the vestrymen, was only crudely to conceal the 
fact that the decisive method of election by ballot was to be re- 
placed by the indecisive method of election in general mass-meeting. 
The second point was given up without reservation, and this was, 
after all, the matter of vital importance. Its importance consisted 
in the fact that in losing the Fifty-One the conservatives were 

1 Broadsides, I. (Broadsides used in this paper are from the collection in the New 
York Historical Society Library.) 

2 The letter was dated 6 o'clock, November 14, and addressed to Daniel Dunscomb, 
chairman of the Mechanics Committee. 4 American Archives, I. 329. 

3 4 American Archives, I. 330. In announcing this change the Fifty-One explained 
that whereas there was apprehended certain inconvenience from the first plan, and "this 
committee having taken the same into further consideration, and having consulted many 
of their fellow citizens, and also conferred with the Committee of Mechanics," etc. 



Delegates to Second Continental Ccuigress 70 

losing their independent organization. The new committee, nomi- 
nated by both factions, could not represent the conservatives as the 
Fifty-One had represented them. On the. contrary, it would stand 
quite as much (more, indeed, as the sequel proved) lor radicalism 
as for conservatism. There was, consequently, no more inherent 
reason for the dissolution of the old conservative Committee <if 
Fifty-One than there was for the dissolution of the old radical Com- 
mittee of Mechanics. But by the present arrangement, alter both 
parties had united in the formation of a new joint organization, one- 
party was required to dissolve its old special organization, the other 
was not. 

The Fifty-' )ne accordingly issued a second notice on November 
15, indicating the change which had been agreed to. The election 
was fixed for Tuesday, November 22. ! On that day a respectable 
number of " freeholders and freemen " appeared at the city hall ; and 
the ticket which had been prepared according to agreement was 
elected without a dissenting voice. 2 With the election of the Com- 
mittee of Sixty the fifty-* >ne ceased to exist. 

The election of the Committee of Sixty and the dissolution of 
the Committee of Fifty-one was the logical result of the fust Conti- 
nental Congress. It prep. tied the way for the disappearance of the 
conservatives as a part}'. Since the colonies as a whole had taken 
a stand, it was out of the question for a local party to direct the 
resistance to the home government on lines laid down by itself. It 
was necessary to take the stand that all of the colonie's had taken, 
or to stand against them : and to stand against them was very nearly 
the same, in the indiscriminating popular mind, as to stand with the 
home government. Increasingly the question which confronted 
each part}' was whether it would stand with Congress and the 
colonies or against Congress ami with England. This question now- 
confronted the conservatives in New York. As a party, there was 
no longer any place for them ; as individuals, would they prefer 
ultimately to become loyalists or revolutionists? Some were ready 
for the latter ; some could do no less than the former. The result 
was that just as the ok] Committee of Fifty-' )ne had from the first 
practically had a large majority for conservative measures because 
the- moderates were then prepared to work with the extreme con- 
servative wing of that committee, so the new Committee of Sixty 
now had practically a large majority for radical measures because 
the same moderates were now prepared to work with the extreme 

1 Ibid. 

*lbid ; cm,.,,, I etter Book, II . Vew Yo> I Hist. Soe. Coll., Fund Series, X. 372; 
Kivington C , November 24, 1774; New \ork Mercury, November 28, 1774. 



"i C. Becker 

radical wing of this committee. 1 Of the original Fifty-One thirty 
members 2 found places on the Committee of Sixty. With one or 
two exceptions, 3 these thirty were taken from the extreme radical 
wing of the Fifty-One and from those moderate conservatives who 
ultimately preferred to become revolutionists rather than loyalists. 
Those of the Fifty-One who found no place on the Sixty repre- 
sented, for the most part, that phase of conservative thought which 
pointed away from revolution and towards loyalism. The thirty 
members of the Sixty who had not been members of the Fifty-One 4 
were men who represented, with some exceptions, radicalism in 
thought and in action. 

In the counties, it has already been pointed out, scarcely any 
part had been taken in the agitation previous to the movement for 
the first Continental Congress. Even that movement had resulted 
there in little positive effort, and in no positive organization of those 
elements which in New York coalesced into the conservative fac- 
tion : only the radicals, and they in some counties only, had made 
a beginning. Consequently, when Congress sent into the counties 5 
its recommendation for an Association, there was not there, as in 
the city, two definitely organized factions ; there was, for the most 
part, only opinion, prejudice, and some conviction, mostly in solu- 
tion. Vet the result of the first Continental Congress was essen- 
tially the same in the counties as in the city. As there was no longer 
any place for the conservative faction in the city, so it was too late 
for such a faction in the counties ; in the counties, as in the city, it 
was increasingly a question of standing with the Congress or with 
the home government. The same process of separation into loyal- 
ists and revolutionists was begun in both places. The difference 
was that in the counties there was no conservative faction to be dis- 
integrated, and there was less of a radical organization to work 

'Smith to Schuyler, November 22, 1774, Lossing, Schuyler, I. 2SS ; Colden to 
Dartmouth, December 7, 1774, Letter-Book. II., New York Hist. Sue. Coll., Fund 
Series, X. 372. 

-'Isaac Low, Philip Livingston, James I >uane, John Alsop, John Jay, P. V. B. 
Livingston, Isaac Scars. David Johnson, Charles Nicholl, Alexander AlacDougall, 
Thomas Randall, Leonard Lispenard, Edward Laight, William Walton, lohn Broom, 
Richard Hallett, Charles Shaw, Nicholas Hoffman, Abram Walton. Peter Van Schaack, 
Henry Remsen, Peter Curtenius, Abram Brasher, Abram P. I.ott, Abram Duryee, Joseph 
Bull, Francis Lewis, John De Lancey, John B. Moore, Gilbert H. Ludlow. 

3 Peter Van Schaack and Isaac Low were the notable exceptions. 

' John Lasher, John Roome, Joseph Totten, Samuel Jones, Frederick lay, William 
W. Ludlow, George Janeway, Rudolphus Ritzema, Lindlay Murray, Lancaster Burling, 
Thomas I vers, Hurcules Mulligan, John Anthony, Francis Barrett, Victor Bicker, John 
White, Theodore Anthony, William Goforth, Win. Denning, Isaac Roosevelt, Jacob 
Van Voorhees, Jeremiah Piatt, William I' stick, Comfort Sands, Robert Benson, William 
W. Gilbert, John Berrien, Nicholas Roosevelt, Edward Fleeming, Lawrence Embree. 

5 The recommendation came to the counties through the Fifty-One. 4 American 
Archives, I. 328, 329. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 72 

with. The process of separation was slower, the balance of power 
was not always with the radicals. Not until the force of arms began 
to replace free discussion did the disappearing opposition of the 
loyalists leave a free field for revolutionist organization. 

In the counties, as in the city, the first question to be answered 
was embodied in the recommendations of Congress. While the 
Association was doubtless circulated in all of the counties, the re- 
sult is unknown or was indecisive ' except in the three that acted 
upon it favorably — Albany, Suffolk, and Ulster. The Albany 
committee, which had now become a permanent organization, rati- 
fied the action of Congress on December 10. So decidedly was the 
committee in favor of the Association that the New York delegates 
were requested to explain why they voted to permit the exportation 
of rice from South Carolina." The Suffolk County committee met 
November 1 5 at the county hall, approved the action of Con- 
gress, and referred the enforcement of the Association to the town 
committees.'' In Ulster committees were appointed, agreeably to 
the resolution of Congress, in the towns of Kingston, 1 New Wind- 
sor,"' Hanover, 1 '' Showangnuk, 7 and Walkill. 8 Mention is made of a 
county committee, but whether this refers to the Kingston com- 
mittee, which may very likely have acted as a county committee, 
or to a separately organized general county committee, is unknown. 
No organized opposition appears to have existed. 

The remaining counties, so far as is known, did not individually 
place themselves on record as being either in favor of or in oppo- 
sition to the policy of Congress. Some feebly intimated their con- 
fidence in the Assembly ; others waited, perhaps, for that body to 
take the initiative. While the Assembly, which was elected in 
17(19, cannot be considered as in any sense representative even of 
the conservative counties at this time, its action is the only record 
we have of the sentiments of those counties that made no definite 
reply to the recommendations of Congress." Whether representa- 

'/-.'. g., Dutchess, 4 American Archives, I. 11(14. '" Queens there appears to 
have been about equal division oi opinion, /A/,/, 1027, 1035, 1191 ; Onderdonck, Docu- 
ments and Letters, 14, 17, 20, 21 ; Mew York Mercury, January 9, 16, 1775; Riving- 
ton's Gazetteer, [anuary 5, 1775. In Orange about half refused to sign, Calendar of 
Historical Manuscripts, I. 5 11. 

' \ Imerican Archives, I. 1097, 1098. 

'< Ibid., 1257, 1258 

'/In,/., I 1100; II. 298; New York Mercury, April 17, 1775. 

\| American Archives, II. 1.51, 1 3 J . 

" Ibid., I. 1 mi. 

' /bid., I. 1183, 1230. 

s Ibid , I. 1 2" 1. 

9 The Assembly was petitioned (<• censure I 'ongre - and t" negotiate with the King 
for redress of grievam Cf. T<> the Freemen, Freeholders, etc., January 19, 1775, 

Broadsides, I. 



7?, C. Becker 

tive or not, the action of the Assembly in the winter of 1775 has 
this significance : much of the opinion, prejudice, and conviction 
which in the counties was still in solution after the first Continental 
Congress remained so for the time being because it was known that 
the colony's legal representatives were about to take a stand on the 
precise question which the extra-legal representatives of all the 
colonies had made the vital question — the question of standing 
with the colonies or with the home government. In February the 
Assembly took its stand ; by a vote of almost two to one it was 
decided not to thank the delegates to the first Continental Congress 
and not to send any delegates to the second. 1 On the other hand, 
it attempted to take matters into its own hand ; in March it sent a 
petition to the King, a memorial to the Lords, and a remonstrance 
to the Commons. 2 The action of the Assembly, which pleased the 
English government ;i and helped to crystallize sentiment in New 
York, was an effort, and all but the last one, to stand in the place 
and to do the work of the old conservative Committee of Fifty- 
One. But it was too late to accomplish anything along these lines ; 
the only result of the Assembly's action was still further to dis- 
integrate the very party whose policy it was thus tardily attempting 
to make effective. 

The first test had now been made. New York and three other 
counties had answered in favor of Congress ; the rest had given no 
more definite answer than might be read into the action of the 
Assembly. The most important test was still to come — the election 
of delegates to the second Continental Congress. 

The decision of the Assembly had no sooner cleared the way 
than the matter was taken up by the radicals in New York through 
their Committee of Sixty. On February 27 Van Brugh Livingston 
moved that the committee should take into consideration " the ways 
and means of causing delegates to be elected to meet the delegates 
of the other colonies ... in general Congress." 4 On March 1, 
when the question was again taken up, the committee, concluding 
that it had no power to elect the delegates itself, decided to refer the 
matter to the freeholders and freemen. A notice was accordingly 
published summoning the freemen and freeholders to meet at the 
Exchange on March 6 to " signify their sense of the best method 

1 4 American Archives, I. 1289, 1290; Golden, Letter-Book, II., New York Hist. 
Soc. Coll., Fund Series, X. 3S0 ; Deane Papers, V., New York Hist. Soc. Co!!., 1S90, 
PP- 5.!' s . 539- 

! 4 American Archives, I. 313. 

3 Ibid., II. 27, 28, 29, 122, 123, 252. 

■Broadsides, I. The motion was carried with only one dissenting vote, that of 
Samuel Jones. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 74 

of choosing such delegates, and whether they will appoint .1 certain 
number of persons to meet such deputies as the counties may elect 
for that purpose, to join with them in appointing nut of their body 
delegates for the next Congress." ' Whether consciously worded 
or not, the fact is that the tun purposes expressed in this document 
are somewhat inconsistent with each other. If the freemen and 
freeholders were to be asked to decide how they preferred to elect 
their delegates to Congress, it is not clear why they should be asked 
whether they would take part in a provincial convention ; it is not 
clear why the committee should express a desire to refer the ques- 
tion of method in the election of delegates to the freemen and free- 
holders, and then, before there could be any decision of that point, 
thrust their own definite plan so intrusively in their faces. In truth 
it would be quite superfluous for the freemen and freeholders to 
consider the first question (the question of the best method) if they 
were expected in any case to consider the second question (the 
question of a particular method); and, under the circumstances, a 
refusal to adopt the committee's plan would be very nearly equiva- 
lent to a refusal to have any part in the second Continental Congress. 
It is clear, therefore, not only that the radicals were in favor of 
sending delegates to Congress, but also that they wanted those 
delegates to be chosen by a provincial convention composed of 
deputies from all the counties in the colony. Such a method ( >1 
choosing delegates would almost necessarily diminish the relative 
influence of New York city in the Congress; it is, consequently, 
necessary to understand why the radicals in the city were in favor 
of a provincial convention. 

The answer to this question is to be found in the fact tluit under 
existing conditions, in spite of the radical control of the Sixty, the 
old method of electing delegates would most likely result in send- 
ing the same kind of a moderately conservative delegation to the 
second Continental Congress that had been sent to the first ; the 
relative influence of New York city was to be reduced in order that 
the influence of the colony as a whole might be less conservative. 
A brief review of the conditions which faced the radicals will make 

'Broadsides, I.; Rivhigton's Gazetteer, March 9, 1 775 ; A/'eiv York Mercury, 
March 6, 1775; 4 American ' ,11. 4, A provincial convention had been urged 

in connection with the electi I delegates to the first Continental Congress, by the 

in New York cit) in their resolutions of July 6, 1774 { .\'< ■■■ York Mercury, July 
11, 1774 , and again in their resolutions of July 20, 1774 (Neto Y01 Mercury, July 25, 

1774). In connection with the second Continental Congress the earlie I 

appears t<> havi ne from Suffolk County. A county meeting on February 23, 1775. 

resolved that ii the Assei 1 ised to appoint delegates, "the Committee of Corres- 

I lence for . . . New York be desired . . in that case to call a provincial conven 

tion for that purpose." 4 American Archives, I. 1-57. 



j*, C. Becker 

this clear. The delegates to the first Continental Congress had 
been elected by counties. The apathy in the rural counties had 
resulted in sending a delegation from the colony in which the city 
delegates (five in number) exercised a determinative influence, not 
only because of their numbers, but also because of their personal 
ability and influence. That influence was, if not decisively conser- 
vative, at least only moderately radical. The problem which con- 
fronted the radicals was how to secure a delegation to the second 
Continental Congress which would exercise a more radical influence. 
If the old method of election was adopted, this could be done in 
one of two ways — either by electing a new and radical delegation 
from the city or by electing sufficiently large and radical delegations 
from the counties to outvote and, what was more important, to 
outweigh in influence the old delegation from the city. Neither 
plan was practicable. The old city delegates were men of the high- 
est standing and of wide influence. They had not seriously opposed 
the action of the first Continental Congress, nor had they refused to 
support the Association. With two exceptions ' they represented 
at its best that part of the conservative faction which was ultimately 
prepared to join the revolutionists. But they had not as yet gone 
very far in that direction. Without being sufficiently radical to suit 
the Committee of Sixty, they were not sufficiently conservative to 
be in any sense out of the race. To defeat these men was probably 
impossible ; to attempt to do so was, in any case, impracticable. 
On the other hand, it was unwise to depend on the election of large 
radical delegations from the counties ; the action of the counties on 
the Association had been all but decisive on that point. The alter- 
native was a new method of election which would enable the Sixty 
at once to support the old city delegates and to neutralize their 
influence. A provincial convention would enable the Sixty to do 
this, because the city delegation to a convention might properly be 
made sufficiently large to leave the old delegates in a minority ; 
whereas it would be out of the question to send so large a delega- 
tion from the city directly to the Congress. In the same way the 
convention could easily form a delegation for the province as a 
whole in which the old delegates should find a place, but in which 
they could no longer exercise a determinative influence ; and this 
co.uld most probably be done equally well whether the rural coun- 
ties took an active part in the convention or not. 2 

1 Isaac Low and John Alsop. 

2 The motives of the radicals are sufficiently well revealed in the broadsides which 
were circulated in defense of the convention. In answer to the objection that a conven- 
tion will deprive the city of "their old delegates," it is stated that New York cannot 



Delegates to Second Conliriental Congi'ess 70 

The conservative element, in the committee and out of it. divined 
the purposes of the Sixty and made an ineffectual attempt to defeat 
them. A meeting was held at Montagnie's on March 3, presided over 
by John Thurman. The proposals of the Sixty were disapproved 
of, first, because there was not time enough before March 6 to set- 
tle so important .1 question ; second, because the method ot taking 
the vote " by collecting the people together " was inexpedient, since 
it permitted oi no distinction between freeholders and freemen, who 
had a right to vote, and "such as were collected on purpose to make 
a show of numbers " ; third, because a provincial convention tended 
directly to the introduction of a provincial congress. It was accord- 
ingly suggested that the whole matter be postponed until the reply 
of the English government to the Assembly's proposals should 
have been received; if nothing could be effected in this way, then 
let the poll be opened in the usual places for the election of delegates 
tn a ci invention by freemen and freeholders only. The conservatives 
declared they were not necessarily opposed to Congress, or even 
to a 1 1 invention, but to the haste with which the matter was being 
pushed through. 1 The protest was scarcely heeded. An answer- 
ing broadside appeared the next day," and in the evening some radi- 
cals met and resolved to support the proposals of the committee.' 

1 In Monday, March <">, the day fixed by the committee for the 
meeting, preparations began early. The vote was to be taken at 
noon. In mid-forenoon the radicals began to assemble at the lib- 
erty-pole, and by eleven o'clock they were on the way to the Ex- 
change, carrying a banner on one side of which was the inscription, 

presume to el& I delegates fur the whole colony, and, on the uther hand, it is impropi 
to crowd the Congress with delegates from each county. In another broadside oi the 
e date, March 14. the author, who signs himself " A Friend to the Congress," says 
that " the necessity of this mode of choosing the delegates for the colony arises from the 
counties having taken off nse at the conduct of this city in choosing the last delegates 
without consulting the counties. . . . The tale that your late delegates are excluded, is 
a lucre trick ; for there is tie- highest probability that they will be chosen by the deputies 
oi the counties as they are in the . . . nomination ol the committee." Broadsides, I. 
Cl 1 Xmerican Ar, hives, II. [39. 

1 Ibid., 48, to 

-' I be author, who calls himself " A Tory," makes the following points : I 1 ) The 

■1 e oi thi city 1 an be tal n -I mday as well as any other time. (2) A convention is 

the plan used by the colonies of New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, ami North Carolina. 

! 1 1 ability thai the Assembly will appoinl delegates. " And as to the dan- 

oftheii being influenced by the measure, I really can see no great harm in a Repri 
sentative being influenced b) his constituents, on the contrary they ought to be." I 1) 
As for waiting advice from England, "may ;h well wail foi the conversion ol the Pope 
as the arrival of the Packet." (5) "That whomever says the committee have presi ribed 
rule, for the counties, lie, under a mistake, they mean only . . . to propose it to the 
counties and consult with them on thi 1 ion ' fo the Learned and Loquacious 
;in, March 4, 1775. Broadsides, I. 

'4 American Archives, II. 48. 



77 C. Becker 

"George III Rex, and the liberties of America," and on the other, 
" The union of the Colonies, and the measures of Congress." About 
the same time the opposite party, strengthened, as was alleged, by 
royal officials, civil and military, began a similar procession from 
Montagnie's. When the processions met at the Exchange, a gen- 
eral melee was avoided with difficulty. Order having been restored, 
the chairman of the Sixty announced the questions upon which the 
vote was to be taken. The questions, as now announced, were not 
formulated as they had been by the committee in its handbill of 
March i — indeed they were not the same questions at all. The 
first question announced by the chairman was whether deputies 
should be sent to a provincial convention ; the second, whether the 
people then present would authorize the committee to nominate 
eleven deputies to a provincial convention. On the first question 
the conservatives demanded a poll in order that the matter might 
be decided by freeholders and freemen according to the recommend- 
ation of Congress. This was refused, and the sense of the meeting 
was taken en masse. According to the radical account, both ques- 
tions were carried by a very great majority. The conservatives, on 
the other hand, claimed that it was impossible to say whether the 
questions were carried or lost : consequently, even granting the 
propriety of the method of voting, it could not rightly be considered 
either that the county was in favor of a provincial convention, or, 
if it was. that any power of nomination had been conferred upon the 
committee. 1 

Whether carried or not (probably a majority of those pres- 
ent were in favor of the committee), the framing of the questions 
was such as to make it impossible to settle them on their merits. 
The wording of the questions shows indeed that the Sixty had 
taken a full step in advance since issuing the first of March hand- 
bill. The committee had called the freeholders and freemen to- 
gether to ask them what they considered the best method of elect- 
ing delegates to Congress, and whether they were in favor of a 
provincial convention ; now that they, together with others, were 
assembled, the committee really asked, not the freeholders and free- 
men, but the inhabitants generally, whether they would send dele- 
gates to a provincial convention, and whether they would authorize 
the committee to nominate eleven delegates to that convention. On 
the first of March two inconsistent questions had been presented to- 
gether in such a way that the real issue had been whether New 

1 The official account of this meeting is in Broadsides, I. Two other more detailed 
accounts have been preserved, one by a radical sympathizer, the other by a conservative. 
The only points in which they disagree have been noted in the text. 4 American Archives, 
II. 48, 49. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 78 

York County should join in a provincial convention or not. On 
the sixth of March two questions somewhat different, but equally 
inconsistent with each other, were presented together in such a way 
that the real issue was whether the committee's method oi sending 
delegates to a provincial convention should be adopted or n<>t. 
The first alternative had been a convention or no Congress ; within 
six days the alternative had become eleven deputies nominated by 
the committee or no congress. 

A little closer consideration of the two questions presented by 
the Sixty on March will make this all but obvious. A negative 
vote on the first question was practically equivalent to opposing the 
second Continental Congress. Undoubtedly there were main- men 
in favor of Congress but opposed to the convention as a method of 
electing delegates to the Congress — men who, nevertheless, il the 
convention was legitimately determined upon, were willing to send 
delegates to it rather than not take part in the Congress at all. 
These men wanted a chance to vote against the convention and in 
favor of some other method. Yet the man who voted negatively 
on the first question said not, "I am not in favor of the convention 
as a method of choosing delegates," but, " 1 am not willing that 
New York County should join the other counties in sending dele- 
gates to the convention, and consequently to the Congress" : such 
.1 vote, practically, would not have the effect of replacing the con- 
vention as a method by some other method, but merely of keeping 
New York County out of the movement altogether. More incis- 
ively than ever and not altogether fairly, there was presented to the 
conservatives the alternative of supporting the convention or of 
seeming to refuse to support Congress — by a shrewd sort of polit- 
ical legerdemain it had come about that supporting or opposing the 
radical committee was apparently identical with the alternative of 
standing with the colonies or with the home government. The 
second question was equally treacherous. The convention once 
determined upon, many men not in favor of it in the first instance, 
but willing if delegates were to be sent to it that the committee 
should nominate them, were not willing that the ticket should con- 
sist of eleven members. Such men could not vote against nominat- 
ing a ticket of eleven delegates without voting against allowing the 
committee to nominate the ticket at all. 

With questions presented in this fashion, those of the old con- 
servative faction who were' facing away from loyalism were likely to 
prefer to support the radical committee rather than give the appear- 
ance of refusing to support Congress: the}' thereby took a long 
step in the direction of revolution. Those of the old con 1 r\ itive 



79 C. Becker 

faction who were facing away from revolution doubtless preferred 
to give the appearance of opposing Congress rather than place that 
body unreservedly in radical hands : they thereby took a long step 
in the direction of loyalism. The meeting on March 6 was thus 
another and an important stage in the disintegration of the old con- 
servative party. Those wdio voted in favor of sending deputies to 
the convention, and in favor of permitting the committee to nomi- 
nate a ticket of eleven members, whatever their motives may have 
been for so voting, found themselves in the company of men who 
voted in the same way precisely for the purpose of imparting to 
Congress a radical and revolutionary impetus. On the other hand, 
those who voted, for whatever reason, not to join with the counties 
in a provincial convention, and against the nomination of delegates 
by the committee, found themselves in the company of men who 
voted in the same way because they considered conventions and 
congresses illegal and treasonable.' 

The Sixty proceeded at once to nominate a ticket. Without any 
serious opposition apparently, the old delegates — Isaac Low, Philip 
Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, and John Jay — were named, 
together with six others — Leonard Lispenard, Abram Walton, 
Francis Lewis, Isaac Roosevelt, Alexander MacDougall, and Abram 
Brasher.- Of the new men, none was conservative like Duane or 
Low, none, perhaps, moderately judicious like Jay, none timid like 
Alsop. Three of them at least — MacDougall, Lewis, Roosevelt 
— were men who would speak and act effectively and unhesitatingly 
for radical measures. If the Sixty could get this ticket elected, it 
might well assume that without opposing the old delegates it had 
succeeded in neutralizing their influence. 

The conservatives still had a fighting chance, perhaps, if they 
chose to use it : they might secede from the Sixty, as the radicals 
had done from the Fifty-One, and nominate a ticket of their own. 
But the radicals left the Fifty-One only after there was no more to 
be gained by remaining in it, and the conservatives had still some- 
thing to gain by retaining a representation on the Sixty — the limi- 
tation of the suffrage to freeholders and freemen. All that was 

■The conservative party which marched from Montagnie's was charged with num- 
bering among its supporters officers of the army and navy, customs officers, and loyalist 
members ol the Assembly. 4 American Archives, II. 48. Among the broadsides pub- 
lished in opposition to the committee was one signed a " Citizen of New York." in which 
the main arguments were : (i) That the only legal representatives of the colony, the 
Assembly, had refused to appoint delegates; (2) that, whatever reason there may have 
been for the first Congress, there was no reason for a second ; (3) that the convention 
would lead to the introduction of a provincial congress, which in turn would usurp the 
functions of the Assembly. Ibid., 44. 

- Uroadsides, I. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 80 

accomplished, consequently, in respect to a separate organization 
was an informal and vain effort at the election to vote for the five 
old delegates without voting for the six new ones. In respect to 
the limitation of the franchise, however, the conservative leaders 
were able to attain their end. March 8, in committee meeting John 
Jay moved that the election should Lie held on March 15 in the 
wards, under the supervision of the vestrymen and subcommittees 
of the Sixty, and that the votes of freeholders and freemen only 
should be received. 1 The radicals felt the mure safe in granting 
this, perhaps, since the)' would be able, now that a popular meeting 
had decided the initial question of the expediency of sending dele- 
gates at all, to force upon the voters the alternative of voting for 
the committee's ticket as a whole, or not at all. On March 15 the 
election was held. Eight hundred and twenty-five freemen and 
freeholders were in favor of sending deputies, and voted for the 
committee's ticket ; one hundred and sixty-three voted negatively 
on both points. Many, on the other hand, offered to vote tor the 
old delegates only. They were refused. The ticket of eleven 
members nominated by the Sixty was accordingly declared duly 
elected." 

Thus having succeeded in getting the support of the city for its 
plan, the committee issued .1 circular to the counties on the follow- 
ing day. 3 The question was referred to the counties in much the 
same way as it had been referred to the city. The counties were 
asked, first, to consider the advisability of a provincial convention ; 
second, to send delegates to a convention which was to meet (the 
Sixty took the liberty of fixing the day) at New York, April 20. 
Practically it was quite as useless for any individual county to con- 
sider the first question as it was impossible for the conservatives in 
the city to get an opportunity of doing so : the practical question 
before each county was whether it would send delegates to the 
convention, which, it appeared, was to meet in any case ; or whether 
it would take no part in the convention. A refusal on the part of 
any county to send deputies to the convention would have no other 
practical effect than to leave that count)' without influence or voice 
in the second Continental Congress. In each county, therefore, the 
fight, where there was a fight, was virtually between those who 
were in favor of the second Congress and those who were not — 
between those who were going the way of revolution and those 
who were going the way of loyalism. There- was no place in the 

. 

• 1 American trchives, II. i ;7. [38, 1 ;'> : New York Mercury, March 20, 1775. 
The vi 1 '1 by wards in the Mercury. 

'Broadsides, I.; 4 American Arc/iiv, , II. 138, 



8 1 C. Becker 

counties any more than in the city for those who, without being 
loyalists, were not in favor of Congress, or for those who, without 
being hostile to Congress, were opposed to a provincial convention. 
The result, for the moment, was a rather marked increase in radical 
activity. Eight counties, aside from New York, sent deputies to 
the convention, though in three of them there was strong opposi- 
tion ; one, at least, definitely refused to be represented ; three, so 
far as is known, took no action. In Albany County it was not 
primarily in response to the letter of the Sixty that delegates were 
elected. After the Albany committee had resolved, in December, 

1774, to support the first Continental Congress, a new and more 
carefully organized county committee was established, which began 
to meet in January. 1 It was composed of deputies from the three 
wards of the city and from the precincts of the county. March 1, 

1775, at a meeting of this committee the chairman produced a 
letter from the Albany members of the Assembly, which recom- 
mended that measures be taken for the election of delegates to 
Philadelphia. It was therefore resolved to request the subcommit- 
tees of the different districts in the county to assemble at Albany 
on March 21, "with full power to elect delegates." 2 Meanwhile 
the letter from New York reached Albany and gave a new direc- 
tion to the activity of the committee. It is not known how this 
letter reached the various districts, but that it did reach them is 
evident from the fact that when the general committee met on 
March 21 all of the deputies had been authorized to elect delegates 
either to the Congress at Philadelphia or to the convention at New- 
York.'' All of the committee except Henry Bogart were found to 

1 This new committee is commonly known as the Committee of Safety. The manu- 
script minutes of this committee, in two volumes, are preserved in the state library at 
Albany. The full title is " Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee for the City 
and County of Albany, begun January 24, 1775." The two volumes cover the period 
from 1775 to 1778. Except at the beginning, the correspondence of the committee is 
omitted. At the beginning every page is numbered ; near the close of the first volume 
the practice was introduced of numbering each leal only ; most of the second volume is 
not paged at all. For the privilege of examining these minutes I am indebted to the 
courtesy of Mr. J. F. A. Van Laer, keeper of the manuscripts at the New York State 
Library. For convenience the citation will be " Minutes of the Albany Committee." 

2 " A letter being produced by the chairman from Colls : Schuyler, Ten Broeck, and 
Livingston, members of the general Assembly, recommending the committee to appoint 
delegates to the intended Congress to be held at Philadelphia. . . . It was unanimously 
resolved that letters be wrote to the committee of the different districts of this county 
requesting their meeting at the House of Richard Cartwright the 21 st day of this month, 
at two o'clock . . . with full power to appoint delegates." Minutes of the Albany 
Committee, I. 10. 

:1 " First the chairman put the question whether the members were fully authorized 
by their constituents to elect Delegates or Deputies to meet the Deputies from the other 
counties it appeared that they were unanimously empowered to appoint either." 

AM. HIST. REV., vol.. ix. — 6. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 82 

be in favor ol~ sending delegates to the convention ; and a ticket of 
five members was unanimously chosen for that purpose. 1 In Kings 
Count}' representatives of four townships met at the county hall 
April 15 and unanimously appointed five deputies to attend the 
convention. The township of Flatlands remained neutral, neither 
supporting nor opposing the measure. 2 In Orange County the 
four precincts of Cornwall, Goshen, Haverstraw, and Orangetown 
held separate meetings and named deputies. 3 Of any opposition 
in these precincts, or of any action at all in others, there is no red >rd. 
In Suffolk a county meeting was held at the county hall, April 6, 
and rive delegates were chosen to represent the count}-. 1 Ulster 
County chose delegates in the same way. On April 7 thirty-nine 
deputies, fitom ten towns, assembled at New Paltz. Three delegates 
were named. ' This action was approved by another town, Roch- 
ester, where a meeting was held on the same day. < Ipposition 
appears to have been confined to a letter signed by Cadwallader 
Colden, Jr., and Peter and Walter DuBois, protesting against the 
election as unlawful." 

In Dutchess, Queens, and Westchester there was strong opposi- 
tion. Although Dutchess sent delegates in response to the New 
York letter, it is doubtful whether a majority of the inhabitants were 
in favor of doing so : it is certain that a majority of the precincts were 
not. The question was taken up first in the towns or precincts 
sepai although the meeting in Charlotte precinct is the only 

one of which a record has been preserved." Of the eleven precincts 

Minutes of the Albany Committee, I. 12. The committee, at this meeting, consisted of 
fifteen members from the following districts: Kirsl Waul, 2; Second Waul, 1 ; Third 
Ward, 2; two districts of kensselaervvyck, 2; Manor ol Livingston, 1 ; Schaghtchick 
district, 2 ; Claverack, I ; Scoharie and Duanesburgh, 2 ; Nestegarie and Halfmoon, 1; 
Saratoga, 1. 

■ \ is made b) Walter Livingston whether Deputies shall be appointed 

tu represent the City and'' ountj ol Ubanj I •> 1 ihi 20 day of April ... at the 

city of New Vork. . . . Resolved, unanimously, that Deputies be appointed . . . Mr. 
Henrj Bogarl . . . dissented, he being for appointing delegates for the City and County 
of Albany to meet the intended congri ; al Philadelphia, Resolved by a majority that 
live persons be appointed. . . . Resolved unanimously that Abram Vales, Walter 
Livingston, Col. Schuyler, Colonel leu Broeck ami Col. Peter Livingston are ap- 
pointed fl>i ■ , 12. 

1 Ca ida //.' ■ 1 al Mann . < ipts, 1. 41. 

' \ tin rifan In in 1 . II. 275, (52, ;i;; 1 r Historical Mann . 1 

2- 3- 

* Ibid., I. 19. 

'•( reorge I linton Manuscripts, 1 . 55 ; < 'alt ndar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 21, 22. 
<"., I- 22. 23 ; Si hoonmai her, Kin ■ ■ [66. 

1 The meeting was held April 7. I he vote st 1 [40-35 in opposition to delegates. 

About 100 more appeared after the poll 1 losi d, and offered to vote for " constitutional 
liberty,' but the advoi all "I the Congress " Leu, up the contest." New York Met% ury, 
April 17, 1775; 4 American Archives, II. 3°4 



83 C. Becker 

in the county seven were opposed to sending delegates to the con- 
vention, four were in favor of doing so. The conservatives claimed 
that in the count}- as a whole there was a large majority opposed 
to the convention ; the radicals claimed that there was a majority 
in favor of it. 1 On the strength of this claim a general meeting was 
held April 14, consisting of deputies from the four radical precincts, 
which named three delegates to represent the county. 2 Although 
it must be said, at the very least, that the wishes of Dutchess 
County were not ascertained in any satisfactory manner, the dele- 
gates were received by the convention. In Queens County the matter 
was taken up by the towns separately also. Three towns, Jamaica, 3 
Hempstead, 1 and Oyster Bay,'' voted not to send delegates ; two 
towns, Newtown 1 ' and Flushing,' appointed one delegate each. In 
Jamaica- and Oyster Bay '' the radicals held subsequent meetings 
and appointed delegates to attend the convention as minority repre- 
sentatives. These four delegates (two representing two towns as 
such, two representing minorities in two other towns) attended the 
convention, but that body decided that Queens County was not en- 
titled to vote on the measures which came before it. In West- 
chester careful management on the part of the radicals was all but 
necessary to get the county represented. The New York letter 
appears to have been communicated — it is not clear just how 1 " — 
to twelve gentlemen residing in four towns " in the southern part 
of the count)-. These twelve gentlemen met at White Plains, 

1 IKd. t 304, 305. 

2 CaUndai of Historical Manuscripts, I. 41. The four precincts were Rheinbeck, 
North East, Armenia, and Rumbout. Poughkeepsie was one of the seven opposed to 
the convention. It seems not unlikely that Dutchess was lar from having a majority in 
favor of the convention. 

1 By vote of 94-82. New ) rk Afercwy, April 3,1775; Rivington's Gazetteer, 
April 6, 1775; 4 American Ar, 'lives, II. 251,838, S39. 

* By resolution in town meeting. Rivingtoris Gazetteer, April 6, 1775; Calendar 
of Historical Manuscripts, I. 38, 39; 4 American Ar, hives. II. 273. 

5 By resolution in town meeting ; vote, 205-42. Onderdonck, Documents ami Let- 
ters . . . of Queens County, 26. 

6 By a popular meeting of freeholders. It is said that loo freeholders, a majority of 
all the freeholders in the town, were present. Jacob Blackwell was elected unanimously, 
4 American Archives, II. 356; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters . . . of Queens 
County, 23; kicker, Newtown, 179. 

7 John Talnian, elected by " great majority" in town meeting. 4 American Ar- 
chives, II. 356; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters, 25. 

8 Joseph Robinson. 4 American trchi , II. 356. 

9 Zebulon Williams ( formerly Seaman ) was given " full power and authority to act ' ' 
in behalf of forty-two freeholders. Calendar of Historical Manuscripts, I. 39, 40. 

10 According to Dawson, there was no "vestage" of the old committee left in West- 
chester, to which the letter might be sent. He thinks the letter was sent to Lewis Mor- 
ris and communicated by him to the twelve men. Dawson, Westchester County, 65, 66. 

ll Theodosius Bartow, James Willis, Abram Guion, of New Rochelle ; William Sut- 
ton, of Mamaronec ; Lewis Morris, Thomas Hunt, Abram Leggett, of Westchester; 
James Horton, of Rye. 



Delegates to Second Continental Congress 84 

March 28, in order to devise means for "taking the sense of the 
county" on the subject of the convention. For this purpose a cir- 
cular letter was issued by them and sent to the different districts, 
calling a general meeting of the freeholders and freemen at White 
Plains, April I I . As it was well known that the initiators of this 
movement were radicals, a letter was circulated by the conservatives, 
dated New York, April 6, urging all who were opposed to conven- 
tions and congresses and in favor of the Assembly's measures to 
assemble at the time and place appointed for the radical meeting. 1 
On April 1 1, accordingly, some two hundred and fifty persons met 
at White Plains, the two parties establishing their headquarters at 
different taverns in the town. About 12 o'clock the radicals assem- 
bled at the court-house and were proceeding to the business of the 
day when the other party, led by Isaac Wilkins and Colonel Philips, 
marched in from Hatfield's tavern. Either from principle or from a 
consciousness of inferior numbers, the}' made no attempt to decide 
the question by ballot. Isaac Wilkins, speaking for the party, 
stated that they wished to have nothing to do with congresses or 
deputies, that their sole purpose was to protest against " such illegal 
and unconstitutional proceedings." Giving three cheers, the party 
returned to Captain Hatfield's, " singing as they went the grand and 
animating song of God save great George, our King." Here, cer- 
tainly, conservatism was hardly to be distinguished from loyalism. 
Without further opposition the radicals at the court-house proceeded 
to appoint eight delegates to the convention. As usual, each party 
claimed a majority." The one county which definitely refused to 
send delegates was Richmond;' those which apparently took no 
action were Charlotte, Cumberland, Tryon, and Gloucester. 

The provincial convention assembled at New York on April 20. 4 
Credentials of election were presented by delegates from New York, 
Albany, Ulster, Orange, Westchester, Kings, Suffolk, Queens, and 
Dutchess. The delegates from Queens were debarred from voting ; ' 
but, even with this exception, a majority of the counties in the 

'4 American Archives, II. 2S2 ; Dawson, Westchester County, 67. 

-'The principal source for the meetings of March 28 and April II is the published 
statement made by Lewis Morris, who was chairman of the meeting of April II. 4 
American Archives, II. 314 ; Calendar of Historical Mantis* rifits, I. 20, 21 ; .V. w 1 
Mercury, April 17, 1775; Rivington's Ca t <>, April 20, 1775; Bolton, Westchester 
County, II 149; Dawson, JVestchestei County, 67. The statement of Morris should be 
checked by the conservative account of the meeting of April 11, in A < York Mercury, 

1 '7> '775! 4 American Archives, II. 321. 1 '1 second statement of Morris, May 7, 
Ibid., 323. 

1 Meeting of April 11 opposed convention almost unanimously. Ibid,, 31 ;. 

•Minutes preserved complete. Ibid. , 351-35^. 

5 " That the gentlemen In Jueens County, viz., John Talman, Joseph Robinson, 

Zebulon Will ->ms, and Col. Jacob Blackwell, lie allowed to be present at its deliberations 



85 C. Becker 

province were represented. On the following day the old dele- 
gates, 1 with the exception of Isaac Low and John Herring, 2 together 
with five others — Peter Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris, 
R. R. Livingston, and Francis Lewis — were elected to represent 
New York province in the second Continental Congress. Of this 
delegation the city's members were no longer a majority. One of 
the most conservative of the old city delegates, Isaac Low, had 
been replaced by an avowed radical, Francis Lewis. The conserva- 
tive programme — the attempt to steer a clear course between abso- 
lute revolution on the one hand and submissive loyalism on the 
other — had broken down, and the disintegration of the conserva- 
tive faction was practically complete : loyalists and revolutionists 
stood face to face. 

Carl Becker. 

and will take into consideration any advice they may offer, but cannot allow them a vote ; 
with which those gentlemen declare themselves satisfied. " a, American Archives, II. 
356 ; Onderdonck, Documents and Letters, 22. 

1 Isaac Low, James Duane, Philip Livingston, John Jay, and John Alsop, of New 
York city; Henry Wisner and John Herring, of Orange; William Floyd, of Suffolk ; 
Simon Boerum, of Kings. 

2 Herring gave satisfactory reasons for declining an election. Low was chairman of 
the Committee of Sixty, but he was not in sympathy with the radical policy of the commit- 
tee. He was nominated, nevertheless, as one of the eleven deputies to the provincial 
convention. Before the election came off he announced that he would not attend the 
convention if elected. He was elected but did not attend. As the convention was lim- 
ited to its own members in the choice of delegates to Congress, the secretary visited Low 
and asked him if he considered himself a member of the convention. He replied that he 
did not. 4 American Archives, II. 355, 357. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 107 393 ft & 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 107 393 A 



Conservation Resouj 
Lig-Free» Type j 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 






\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 107 393 A 



Conservation Resour 
Lie-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Bufferedt 



